The tone rises towards the contenders for an elected position. The tone is also raised towards the journalists. However, it would be wrong to blame this unhealthy climate solely on the presence of social media. The perspective must be broadened beyond the means used to understand the source of these behaviors.
Over the past few decades, political and media institutions have simultaneously faced a decline in trust in them. However, the idea of having confidence is based on the expectation of future behaviors based on the experience of past behaviors. Many researchers have shown how the perception of trust depends on the perception of competence of those who represent these institutions. The performance and ethics of politicians and journalists are dominant factors. They make it possible to fix the perception of the level of competence and therefore of the attributed confidence. And the fact is that the perceived competence of politicians and journalists is in steep decline. So it is with the perception of trust in them.
Any loss of confidence leads to disinterestedness. In politics, voter turnout is plummeting and the news media are seeing their audiences fall. Many have ceased to have confidence on the basis of past experience and lost interest in political and media life. Others will now trust by taking a risk on future behavior.
The legitimacy of political and media institutions is now granted only on the basis of a calculation of risk. At best, the next government will be better and produce representative public policies. At best, the information disseminated will be a relevant reflection of reality. At worst, the risk bet will be lost and it will no longer be possible to trust.
Social media
Loss of trust, loss of participation and loss of legitimacy of what is produced now characterizes political and media institutions. But they are socially essential.
The expression of defiance towards them seeks to force them to adapt to social expectations, if not to be replaced. Politicians exercise political power on behalf of all in a context where representation is ineffective. It is also gradually being replaced by social acceptability as a form of legitimately granted trust. Journalists offer a reduced reality of the world in a context where it no longer succeeds in imposing itself. It is quickly replaced by one or other of the multiple realities offered by globalization through digitization.
Social media, far from being the cause of mistrust, is rather the means. They increase the will for political participation by allowing social acceptability to replace representativeness. They extend the media reality to the realities of the world. And above all, they allow the individual expression of defiance towards those who symbolize the decline of political and media institutions.
In essence, individuals are gregarious. Their natural and instinctive tendency pushes them to come together. Disappointed by the lost bet of risk and lonely on the digital Web, they are desperately in search of a social identity. Some will find it in a community of minds restricted and denying all others. Therein lie the roots of populism. Others will never find it and will only have as an outlet for their mistrust the violence of their words.
The tone is rising because trust is falling, not because social media is there. To preserve themselves, institutions must reshape the perception of those who are their symbols, politicians and journalists. They must expose their competence to the eyes of all and show that, in the absence of trust, it is possible to trust.